******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Memo to the Right: "The Lombardi Rule" Is In Effect

We have heard so much about the supposed Buckley Rule, which Charles Krauthammer and other Mike Castle supporters over-simplistically synthesized as follows:
"Support the most conservative candidate who is electable."
The Buckley Rule is for primaries.  The Delaware primary is over.  To paraphrase Krauthammer, Castle supporters didn't go to Delaware and make it happen.

The choice now is between Christine O'Donnell and Chris Coons.

Yet some of our leading bloggers and pundits are on a mission to prove that they were right, and that O'Donnell was not the best pick.  To that end, they regurgitate every snippet of gossip and every tape from the 1990s without context or reflection, much less waiting until the O'Donnell campaign has a chance to respond.

They must have a pretty dim view of the voters in Delaware to think that some sophomoric videos from the 1990s outweigh the national issues hovering over the race, not to mention Coons' recent problems, like multiple tax increases and an exploding budget deficit in his county.

Do these bloggers on the right think that someone whose job just got shipped to China because of our excessive regulation and taxes gives half a crap about whether Christine O'Donnell "dabled into witchcraft" when she was younger?

Do our self-appointed guardians of "the Buckley Rule" think that the tens of thousands of Delawareans who will be forced off their private health plans, whose businesses will be decimated by cap-and-trade, whose 2nd Amendment rights are under attack, whose right to be left the hell alone is about to evaporate, really care that when Christine O'Donnell was young and irresponsible, she was young and irresponsible?

Does high blog traffic trump our collective national desire to see our kids grow up in a nation in which the state is the servant not the master (h/t Margaret Thatcher)?

To those on the right playing into the Think Progress and Media Matters playbook because they think it makes them look wise, don't you see the game? 

The left is doing to O'Donnell exactly what they did to Sharron Angle -- swamp her with accusations and nonsense in the days after the primary to keep her from organizing her campaign.  The Nevada primary was months ago, so Angle had a chance to recover.  O'Donnell doesn't have that luxury of time given the late primary.  She needs to integrate millions of dollars in new cash, gear up with staff, and plan her attack. 

With each of your self-righteous columns and snide blog posts, you become part of the problem not part of the solution.

The woman (at the time, a young woman) went on MTV and Maher and who knows where else, and said some things that she would not say now.  For that sin you are ready to toss her overboard so that you can declare yourselves to have been wiser than the unwashed voters who elected her in the primary?

And we call the Democrats elitist snobs?  Stop being so damn selfish.  November is not about who was right or wrong in the primaries.  If Castle had won, O'Donnell supporters would have rallied around him, or at least kept their mouths shut.

Quin Hillyer and Mary Katherine Ham have advised that there not be a conservative blog war, because we have more important things to do right now.  Fine, the perps have been called out already and it is time to rally around the effort.

Now that the general election primary is over, so too is the Buckley Rule.  Please take notice that the Lombardi Rule is in effect:

“The object is to win fairly, by the rules – but to win.” 
So [names of conservative blogs and pundits still dumping on O'Donnell deleted], get over it and get to work defeating Democratic rubber-stamp hack Chris Coons.

Because, as Hillyer says, "[w]e are fighting for our country here."

And winning that fight in November is all that matters.

Update:  O'Donnell said today that the "dabbling into witchcraft" took place in high school.  Who looks silly now, O'Donnell or the conservatives who declared her candidacy dead because of the witchcraft revelation?

And, don't forget to Mark Your Calendars.

--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Bookmark and Share

66 comments:

  1. Exactly. It's over and done guys, now instead of wasting time linking to TPM, LGF, HuffPo and other assorted garbage sites looking for meaningless dirt on O'Donnell let's focus our attention on the real problem: the bearded Marxist.

    P.S. For the record, I still think many of the views she had in her younger years were the valid and correct ones. It's also too bad that as we got older we get less and less open and honest about our lives in fear people will use it against us. But I digress...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Recall that in his book "The Choice," Bob Woodward revealed that during White House seances, the First Lady held conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi. If memory serves, the White House's defense was that this was an "intellectual" exercise. So, I guess that according to the left, this sort of conduct would not disqualify a candidate from being a Senator from NY, a Secretary of State, or a presidential candidate, but it disqualifies a candidate from being a Senator from Delaware? And to the Professor's point, maybe I just missed the the pundantry on the right's application of this particular litmus test to Mrs. Clinton during her campaigns. One may disagree with Hillary Clinton's politics, but few would use "RIP" to describe her political career because of her seances.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One time teen-aged Coven-Curious VS The Africanized Bearded Marxist

    gee... I go with the teen-aged Coven-Curious

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Do these bloggers on the right think that someone whose job just got shipped to China because of our excessive regulation and taxes gives half a crap about whether Christine O'Donnell "dabled into witchcraft" when she was younger?"

    Nope. But that's not how politics work, especially not leftist politics.

    Look at, for instance, Stewart and Colbert's marches. Hell, look at Colbert's career. He doesn't make a single intelligent argument. All he does is parody the right. And he has a ton of viewers.

    And you can't say *anything* to rebut it without being portrayed as a humorless stooge. It's the socially acceptable version of the howling protestors drowning out intelligent debate. And it's ruthlessly effective.

    Basically, any conservative message has to get past the "static" that the left is broadcasting. Our message will always come with some static built in because we don't always agree, we have personal differences, etc.

    So it's absolutely critical that we organize to keep our message on point and focused, otherwise we will be drowned out by liberal static.

    O'Donnell is going to have to answer stupid questions about being Wiccan when she could be talking about issues. This will hurt her message, and that will hurt her as a candidate.

    Incidentally, one way to put this to rest might be to do an interview with a Wiccan publication and talk about it. They're actually very nice people, and she could talk about how it's an interesting faith that appeals to young people, and how and why she moved on to Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm amazed at the vociferousness with which the self-proclaimed voices of conservative reason are complaining. I went on one of the blogs to make the point that just by repeating the meme they were reinforcing it, and that they should instead be ridiculing the premise that this makes any difference in the equation - O'Donnell is who we have and she's better than Coons. Even the fact that I think she was better than Castle isn't important - the Delaware voters thought she was, and now that they have spoken she's the person we should rally around or at least not actively rail against.

    My point was "either support her or shut up".

    It's a simple concept: if you don't want to support her, fine, but at least do those of us who do support her the favor of not supplying Coons with more ammunition. Go support the people you do think are worthy of your effort and leave Delaware to us.

    This is twisted to "SUPPRESSING ARGUMENT" and "RABID PALINISM"! What argument? The only argument is whether she is better than Coons, and if you don't think she is, then please spend your time on another race.

    Case in point, I would not have wanted Castle elected. He's the epitome of a RINO and would give the Maine twins a triplet. That being said, I still wouldn't spend time beating the drum against him as a candidate. I'd figure the Delaware voters had given themselves a lose-lose situation and I'd instead focus on races that had a better chance of a good outcome. I'd in effect shut up about Delaware.

    The anti-O'Donnell carping seems to be some serious sour grapes from the Castle supporters and perhaps not a little bit derived from the fact that she's a Palin choice. PDS runs deep in the not-so-conservative ranks, and only that level of craziness seems to explain this vituperation.

    That and the desire for blog hits, I suppose.

    -- AJsDaddie

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm amazed at the vociferousness with which the self-proclaimed voices of conservative reason are complaining. I went on one of the blogs to make the point that just by repeating the meme they were reinforcing it, and that they should instead be ridiculing the premise that this makes any difference in the equation - O'Donnell is who we have and she's better than Coons. Even the fact that I think she was better than Castle isn't important - the Delaware voters thought she was, and now that they have spoken she's the person we should rally around or at least not actively rail against.

    My point was "either support her or shut up".

    It's a simple concept: if you don't want to support her, fine, but at least do those of us who do support her the favor of not supplying Coons with more ammunition. Go support the people you do think are worthy of your effort and leave Delaware to us.

    This is twisted to "SUPPRESSING ARGUMENT" and "RABID PALINISM"! What argument? The only argument is whether she is better than Coons, and if you don't think she is, then please spend your time on another race.

    Case in point, I would not have wanted Castle elected. He's the epitome of a RINO and would give the Maine twins a triplet. That being said, I still wouldn't spend time beating the drum against him as a candidate. I'd figure the Delaware voters had given themselves a lose-lose situation and I'd instead focus on races that had a better chance of a good outcome. I'd in effect shut up about Delaware.

    The anti-O'Donnell carping seems to be some serious sour grapes from the Castle supporters and perhaps not a little bit derived from the fact that she's a Palin choice. PDS runs deep in the not-so-conservative ranks, and only that level of craziness seems to explain this vituperation.

    That and the desire for blog hits, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If the GOP elites insist on turning this election into a knife fight against conservatives, I suggest we adopt the Butch Cassidy rule: "No rules!!"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWTNBRs7Ccs

    "I was rootin' for ya Butch!" Love that scene. Great movie.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The one statement that you can always lobb over the rhetorical fence to those who don't seem to give the opposition any out is the following (I forget who originally posed it):

    I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you actually believe what you just said.

    Never return negative for negative; always stick with the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Amen. Excellent piece Prof. Jacobson!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Phil, I posted that quote yesterday (facetiously leaving out the author) and it was first said by William F. Buckley who never disappoints if you are looking for witty yet biting quotes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Professor;

    I think you over-stated you case in your last sentence, which conflicts with both the Lombardi Rule and what I know about you.

    http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/09/crash-speaking-truth.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. [names of conservative blogs and pundits still dumping on O'Donnell deleted]

    You can faux 'delete' there names, but many of us will still remember them when the time comes.

    And it will.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Amen brother!

    Louis Lombardi
    State College, PA

    ReplyDelete
  14. Didn't liberals condemn this style of attack when they claimed that this is what Andrew Breitbart did to Shirley Sherrod?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sir,
    Great post. I second your sentiments, but Karl Rove apparently does not. He was at it again today attacking O'Donnell. Thus my own entry into the fray at ResoluteCon.Com.

    http://bit.ly/9sWKRb

    V/R
    John Guardiano

    ReplyDelete
  16. Now that's talking truth to power(line) good job prof.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This has been a real eye-opening experience for me. While I always expected to be disappointed by politicians and I always recognized those pundits/journalists/bloggers who I felt were more ruling class/elitist/RINO Republicans, I never expected the reaction I'm seeing days after a candidate has been duly elected.

    I'm especially disappointed in some of the less mainstream blogs. In some instances, I feel like I've lost a good friend. Silly in a way but a valuable lesson nonetheless. At least I've freed up a lot more time for myself for there are many blogs I won't be frequenting any more.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Heh. Conservatives want to replace the political class with real people, and when a 'real people' has the chance to do just that, they spend an inordinate amount of time attacking her...for being a real human being instead of a political hack.

    The same conservatives complain about Country Club Republicans and then speak and act just like the Country Club Republicans they claim to despise.

    They claim to despise the MSM, but spread the memes and narratives that the MSM originates. ('hijacked religion of peace', anyone?)


    Ideologues are f***ing nuts, wherever they land n the political spectrum.

    Freedom is for everyone, not just for ideologues. That's the struggle, people. If you still think that system works, you should honestly and rationally support the candidate that the system has chosen.

    Freedom is for adults. Start acting like adults.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Man, that post got me fired up!

    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just returned late last night from the Reagan dinner in Iowa: much harrumphing from the establishment that Palin is refusing to stay within the guidelines determined by the self-professed guardians of the political process.

    There is a lot to distill: I have an entire Mead composition book filled with notes, quotes and general observations, which I hope to collate into some type of digestible format within the next few days. O'Donnell is but one small piece of the puzzle that has the pundit class so distressed.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I get it. C O'D or the Marxist. The choice is obvious.

    However, that doesn't mean when a candidate does something stupid that we take the Unicorns and Candy Mountain route. Because now it's turning into *any critique of a candidate means you're RINO scum*.

    Seriously, if you run against what the Tea Party Express and Mark Levin have declared you're just a jackass.

    That isn't grown up either. And it's the way "they" operate.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't understand the reactions of Rove or Krauthammer. I get the fact that they want a certain number of Republicans in order to obtain chairs, but when you have a communist like Castle as one of the number, will you actually have policy change? For that matter, 51 Senators will not make for policy change. If anyone can explian why they have such a marked reaction to this woman, please explain.

    For my part I feel that anyone can be elected if they are presented right. From the little I have seen of O'Donnell she strikes me as a silly little girl. But that would not be why I would give her my vote, the reason would be that she clearly wants to stick to the conservative agenda (not like the bunch of Republican we elected in the 90's and later). I have a feeling that if people like her don't get in and if the agenda in DC does not change that the people will begin to forget the election process and take a more direct method of reducing the size and influence of the government.

    ReplyDelete
  23. David, it is really quite simple. They are bitter and angry because they weren't consulted, they weren't in the loop, and their chosen boy got beat.

    They are just like the whiny kid who happened to own all the baseball gear; the one who would insist nobody was going to get to play unless he got to play first base.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Professor, apparently your impulse last night to go slow on the trigger dissipated quickly because here you are going full bore after the handful of conservative pundits and bloggers who are the least of O'Donnell's problems.

    O'Donnell's central problem is that she faces a near-impossible uphill climb in a state so overwhelmingly Democratic that in the last mid-term Senate election in 2006, the Democrat won with 70% of the vote. With Maher's 22 shows thrown into the mix of all the other kookie things about O'Donnell, if she wasn't toast before, as I believe, she sure is now.The issue for you really ought to be whether you want to keep doubling down on a candidate who simply isn't worthy of your support for the next six weeks or spend that time and energy on the dozens of other candidates who can use the help and really are competitive.

    Instead what I'm sensing here is the excitement of having a flame war among bloggers, which would not demonstrate seriousness about politics.

    Taking on the main points of your post, here are a few thoights:

    1) You say O'Donnell was being "sophomoric" in appearances on Maher's show in "the 1990s" when she was "younger," presumably a mere kid.

    The sad truth is that O'Donnell was 30 years old when she appeared in the first of Maher's clips. When I was 30, my contemporaries had finished college, served in the armed forces, come home and completed graduate or professional schools, married and begun to have kids. You cannot use the excuse that she was young when we're talking about a 30 year old. When did she begin to mature? At 35? Last year at 40?

    2) Will tens of thousands of Delaware voters "really care that when Christine O'Donnell was young and irresponsible, she was young and irresponsible?"

    Well, first, she was 30 years old and older which will not strike voters s particularly young. Second, voters have shown countless times that they do care about candidates' pasts. If they didn't, there would never be any advantage for candidates who served in the armed forces or elsewhere in government or started a company or accomplished something else to mention any of that. This is really elementary, and you have to be oblivious to think otherwise. Third, Delaware voters were not all that inclined to vote for O'Donnell a week ago, and now they have even less reason to so so.

    3) You suggest for the umpteenth time that O'Donnell is just getting the same shabby treatmeant as Sharron Angle. There may well be parallels in the way lefties are capitalizing on O'Donnell's foibles, but please, please give this silly argument a rest. Angle had her issues but nothing remotely as loony as O'Donnell's. And most of the issues used against Angle (on Social Security, etc.) were political in nature and were used by Reid to try to paint her as an "extremist." O'Donnell's issues boil down to her not being a serious person who can be taken seriously. Angle's challenges are far more manageable than O'Donnell's.

    In any case, Nevada is a swing state, not a Democratic state and Harry Reid has sky-high negatives. It's not Delaware, and every time to compare the two as if they were the same, you show a lack of seriousness yourself.

    4) Powerline is not "supplying Coons with more ammunition" by blogging about the obvious. O'Donnell is supplying Coons with all the ammunition. It's coming from her -- from her kookie activities and statements and associations for the bulk of her adult life.

    Candidates come and go year after year and some will disappoint their supporters. The best way to deal with that is to channel your energy somewhere else to help a candidate less likely to disappoint.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Michael Gerson has some compelling thoughts about Karl Rove's honest critique of O'Donnell and how some O'Donnell backers have defaulted to a disturbing Leninist-like response:

    "While Rove's critique was tough, the reaction in parts of the conservative blogosphere has been unhinged. Michelle Malkin wrote that it 'might as well have been Olbermann on MSNBC.' Mark Levin pronounced Rove at 'war against the Tea Party movement and conservatives.' 'In terms of the conservative movement,' wrote Dan Riehl, 'we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us.'"

    "This reaction is revealing -- and disturbing -- for a number of reasons.

    "First, it shows how some conservatives view the business of political commentary. Rove obviously has strong views on O'Donnell, based on personal experience with the candidate. But deviations from the party line are not permitted. It is not enough to dispute Rove's critique; Rove himself must be punished. The message is clear: The facts do not matter. Politics is war carried on by other means. Anyone who doesn't consistently take one side is a traitor.

    "This attitude can be found on right and left. But a serious commentator cannot think this way. He owes his readers or viewers his best judgment -- which means he cannot simply be a tool of someone else's ideological agenda. Some conservatives have adopted the Bolshevik approach to information and the media: Every personal feeling, every independent thought, every inconvenient fact, must be subordinated to the party line -- the Tea Party line."

    Exactly. Here we have the likes of Levin and Riehl declaring war on Karl Rove who has spent months raising millions of dollars to poar into the campaigns of Angle, Toomey, Rubio and dozens of others running for House and Senate -- because Rove won't toe their line on O'Donnell.

    Talk about arrogance and self-importance!

    ReplyDelete
  26. I saw this post as highly cohesive instead of divisive. Great job, Professor, and BTW, I knew you wouldn't take that twitter bait.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Someone's financial ox got gored. Nothing else explains the vitriol. Saving face in politics is directly proportional to income. Now, I wonder who (indeed, how many?) the Tea Party is offending by not following the script?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bravo Professor, you are truly a shinning light, in that dark hole of leftism that is Ithaca, NY. P.S. I have first hand knowledge. I have relatives that live there and, I don't live that far away from there.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The "Buckley Rule" needs to be balanced by the "Buckley Principle" about preferring to be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston phone book rather than the faculty of Harvard.

    That list of 2000 citizens is likely to include some people with some personal problems and some problematic views and statements in their past. Not very many will have a lot of the professional experiences we typically associate with Senatorial types. But the primary voters in Delaware, and a lot of people across the country, seem to be deciding that flawed citizen government may have a better chance of success than government of professional, polished politicians.

    What's been most distasteful to me in the fallout from the dispute, beginning in the run-up to the vote and ever since, is the assumption of mala fides, the venting of personal vitriol, and the absolutism in the way conservatives have been expressing their points. It makes me far less optimistic about whether much will change after November's election. I still assume there will be a serious shift in Congress, but too much energy is going to internal ideological positioning for the conservative movement to address the Left. I hope that changes between now and then.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Guys. O'Donnell just answered your demands to explain these "Wiccan" videos. She was in high school at the time. High. School. She was a child. Quite an over-achiever wouldn't you say?

    Kinda changes things a little? Feel silly?

    ReplyDelete
  31. She's Ned Flanders: thinks masturbation is wrong and Halloween is sinful.

    ReplyDelete
  32. John Burke, she was thirty years old while appearing on Maher. Exactly how old was she during the time she described? Or are you alleging she was describing contemporaneous events?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Unfortunately they won't stop. They will do everything in their power to kill her campaign to be right. This is so much more then a "blog" war this is war for the heart & soul of the Republican Party. This is a fight about WE The People and the Political Class.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "The sad truth is that O'Donnell was 30 years old when she appeared in the first of Maher's clips."

    Talking about high school dalliances. The past. Past things she's done and grown beyond.

    As to not being electable in Delaware, neither was Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

    Maybe she'll lose. I don't know. But this race certainly has shaken out some interesting nuts from the blogging trees.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Do you think the Dems will risk throwing away the Wiccan vote?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Winning isn't everything.

    It's the only thing.

    ReplyDelete
  37. She's Ned Flanders: thinks masturbation is wrong and Halloween is sinful

    Boo!! The godbotherers have NEVER delivered on the scary predictions by the libertines of either party. The Sharia crowd will, however.

    You want the right to masturbate unjudged by a public official who could care less what goes on in your bathroom; and yet the Green Party Marxist types want to outlaw toilet paper. If you approve of that sort of meddlesome oversight, please wipe your political ass with your non-voting hand.

    ReplyDelete
  38. We can't forget that this is a three-way fight. All politicians/candidates AND their supporters fall into one of three camps - the Social Democrats, the Democrats-Lite, and the Constitutional Conservatives. Rove and Krauthammer seem to be loyal Democrats-Lite, and we need to defeat them, eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The left is doing to O'Donnell exactly what they did to Sharron Angle

    Yup. those darn Lefties are quoting people again.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I kind of like the "Victoria" rule: "We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat." ---Queen Victoria

    ReplyDelete
  41. Conservative Zombies
    Zombie: in voodoo, a dead body supposedly brought back to life again without a soul


    The next time I hear or read about the “Buckley rule” I’m going to spit. I’m always amazed at the number of conservatives like Bill Buckley or Barry Goldwater, now safely dead, who are being resurrected by the members of the MSM any time Conservatives do something of which Liberals disapprove.


    Buckley, barely two years dead, was a favorite punching bag of the Left who loved to make fun of his use of big words, his defense of Joe McCarthy, and cite with glee his original objection to civil right laws which they attribute to racism. But suddenly, the “Buckley rule” is supposed to be the guiding light of Conservatives. The Buckley rule is (in the words of Charles Krauthammer):
    support the most conservative candidate who is electable.
    That means that Conservatives are supposed to take one for the team and should have nominated Mike Castle – the RINO establishment candidate who was supposed to be a shoo-in. A funny thing happened to the shoo-in, he could not get the Republican Senatorial nomination in Delaware.


    In case anyone needs reminding, Buckley should be celebrated for not following the Buckley rule. He ran for Mayor of New York to take votes away from Republican John Lindsay, supported Democrat Joe Lieberman when he ran against Republican Lowell Weicker and led a successful campaign to unseat Republican Charles Goodell in favor of brother Jim Buckley running on the Conservative party ticket. In the last two instances, the insurgent won. There are no final electoral decisions until the votes are counted.


    I have a great deal of respect for Krauthammer but he’s no movement Conservative. He’s a thoughtful pragmatist who’s very worried about the ability of a radical like Barack Obama to change America fundamentally from a free-enterprise republic to and all-encompassing corporatist state with leaders who don’t like America. In First Lady Michelle Obama’s immortal words, she has never been proud of America in her adult life until now.


    Of course for Democrats in and out of the media the references to the Buckley Rule are self-serving, which is not surprising. In a time of particular political turmoil where all the energy seems to be on the Right, the Left is concerned that the tsunami has so far hit only Liberal Republicans. The real concern is how badly the Left will be hurt in November. It is useful for Democrats to be able to co-opt members of the Republican Party whose only quibble with the Democrats’ agenda is the price tag, not the issues themselves.


    Make no mistake, the Tea Party movement, despite the rhetoric about deficits, is fundamentally about the role of government. If the government can be transformed from the all-encompassing omnipresent Big Brother to a government of limited powers envisioned by the founders, the deficits will recede.


    The Buckley rule is a useful rule of thumb for ordinary times. But just as the constitution is not a suicide pact, the Buckley rule should not bind us in extraordinary times; just as it did not bind William F. Buckley, Jr. All we have to do is help O’Donnell win. The process is already started; she’s raised nearly $2 million via small contributions from all around the country in less than a week. Go HERE to contribute. And while giving, let’s help Sean Bielat retire Barney Frank.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Wow. Beware the fury of a patient man.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The most amazing thing to me about this particular election?
    She's running for the seat Joe Biden held for years.
    Joe Freakin' Biden!!
    Wiccan? Coven? Who cares?
    Obviously, anyone with the intelligence of a Chimpanzee can be successful in that position.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Joan of Argghh!: (love that name) Just wanted to let you know that I clicked on your link to pay a visit to your blog. Fantastic! Lots of links to other great blogs too, blogs I never heard of before.

    That's why I stopped blogging. I can't compete against so many great blogs. I'd have to kill somebody to draw traffic.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Thanks, Phil. How very kind of you to say so!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Right now the most electable conservative in DE is O'donnel. Where is Krauthammer's support?

    ReplyDelete
  47. What part am I not understanding?

    Obama is still running against Bush. Or Palin.
    (Palin is probably a valid concern now, come to think of it.)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thomas D wrote (and others made a similar point): "John Burke, she was thirty years old while appearing on Maher. Exactly how old was she during the time she described? Or are you alleging she was describing contemporaneous events?"

    Exactly. She was 30 years old when she appeared on Maher's wretched show and laughed it up about dabbling into witchcraft in high school -- on a show where the right was able to put in invited appearances only to be lampooned or eviscerated by Maher and the rest of his guests, most of whom were D list liberal whackos.

    Yet, O'Donnell appeared on his show 22 times! Why? What serious 30-year-old political conservative would agree to play the conservative foil to Maher's sick putdowns again and again? Someone who saw a way to promote herself as some sort of minor media "celebrity" or else a seriously non-serious person dabbling in politics.

    That's my indictment against Christine O'Donnell. She's a self-promoting phony who was eager to say or do anything, however loony, to get on TV...or snag a nomination.

    When you put such a person forward for high elective office, you cannot be surprised or offended, much less angered, by the fact that a lot of people -- most importantly the voters -- are going to say to themselves, WTF!

    ReplyDelete
  49. How sad that on the subject of this candidate, Messers Rove, Krauthammer et.al. have thrown in with the elitist snobs. Whatever happened to respect for the decision of the voters fairly and democratically expressed at the polls? THEY are the party.

    ReplyDelete
  50. What a scandal that Rove, Krauthammer, et.al., have joined the ranks of the snobocracy in assailing Christine O'Donnell. Whatever happened to the reverent respect these pundits used to show for the decision of the party rank and file, fairly and democratically expressed at the polls?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I still assume there will be a serious shift in Congress, but too much energy is going to internal ideological positioning for the conservative movement to address the Left.

    The question is: Is the Tea Party strong enough to fight a two front war?

    My answer is yes.

    And I will also predict that O'Donnell will be the next Senator from DE.

    Besides any socon who goes to meet with Libertarians to discuss her position on the Drug War has a LOT going for them in my book.

    Any friend (or former friend) of Aleister Crowley is a friend of mine.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Let's not wonder any longer at the apparent turncoat behavior here.

    When the prols were behaving themselves, the "will of the people" was important.

    Now that Winston (a friend named "Winston died last week) has gone and thought for himself, it is a different matter completely.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The NYT ponders whether to suck the scum at the top of the Democrat Slough of Despond or feed off the bottom of that Swamp! Commissars Pelosi/Plouffe/Axelrod & other Dem Goebbels-wannabes are now debating how to frame their latest big smear and big lie. And Rove & Krauthammer can't keep their control-freak mouths shut about Delaware because Rove thinks he engineered a GWB victory in 2000. He also engineered the most spendthrift Administration ever until 2008. We need a GOP without a Rove or a Grover Nordquist trying to be Wizard of Oz to our Dorothy. Or a Tea Party by itself that can restore constitutional government.

    ReplyDelete
  54. So she was on the Maher show 22 times. Maybe she was trying to convert Maher, or talk over to him the audience. Maybe she was ambitious and wanted to get into politics but was stupidly born without financial resources or a Harvard degree.

    So what so what so WHAT? She is likeable, engaging, and will vote the right way reliably, becuz she does savvy the borg, and is clearly free to savage it.

    We don't matter anyway --the voters of Delaware matter. We could all just shut up and do what Simon says, and let the Delawarians do as they shall anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Forget Lombardi Rules, I want to see the Bangkok Rules used...

    "Nobody draws until this can hits the ground..."

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Yet, O'Donnell appeared on his show 22 times! Why? What serious 30-year-old political conservative would agree to play the conservative foil to Maher's sick putdowns again and again? Someone who saw a way to promote herself as some sort of minor media "celebrity" or else a seriously non-serious person dabbling in politics."

    Ah, so according to you, Conservatives should only appear in front of friendly audiences? Or, at least, only on programs you approve of?
    Which brings us back to the Buckley quote on your intelligence. Are you sure you're not a Democrat, because you sound like one?

    ReplyDelete
  57. @John Burke

    "That's my indictment against Christine O'Donnell. She's a self-promoting phony who was eager to say or do anything, however loony, to get on TV...or snag a nomination."

    Phonier than Mike Castle? He claimed he was a Republican! And phony how? You got any evidence she lied to Maher? Phonier than Coons? Is it better if he really is a "beardered Marxist"?

    I see no evidence O'Donnell will be anything other than the best candidate running for the office at this point, so quit trashing her or leave the party--since you won't support the candidate.

    Rubio made up a far larger lead deficit in Florida against a much more credible opponent than the bearded Marxist. With no flak from the RINOs, and but with support from them--I think O'Donnell can do the same.

    The only credible reason to hope she loses is that id the R's don't take the Senate, we have an easier time making the D's own the downside results of gridlock.

    I say push for O'Donnell anyway, because if we end up with both houses, that's a good problem to have.

    She's getting some of my money.

    The RNC hasn't for three years and won't until there is a fundamental change in the R side of Washington.

    They need to adopt the principle that their job is to make themselves as irrelevant as possible by way of shrinking government to it's constitutional bounds.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Well said, Tom Perkins. I was going to respond earlier; I'm glad I waited. The worst part of JB and his ilk's comments is that the left can use them as cover: hey! don't listen to me, I'm a lefty, read/hear what conservatives say about her.

    Prof Jacobson's points still stand unscathed.

    ReplyDelete
  59. People on here are very passionate. Good for you all. I hope the voters in Delaware have the same passion. I'm just afraid of one thing. If O'Donnell doesn't win, I hope I don't hear blame placed on a couple of "establishment hacks and bloggers." If a couple of mainstreem people can complain and comment and bring her down then maybe she just wasn't a good enough candidate. If you are going to champion her victory, as you should, you can't decry her defeat as one brought on by the people in your party that you don't agree with because it's this type of reasoning that doesn't get us anywhere.

    I believe the people you are now angry with will applaud an O'Donnell win, I hope you will consider their reasoning in backing the moderate if we get another Marxist in the Senate.

    ReplyDelete
  60. John Burke, and yet here you are carrying Maher's water.

    You must be the transparency Obama promised us.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Sheesh. For people who claim to hate the Establishment, a lot of you are sure acting like it now. "The primary is over! It's us vs. them! Either support the candidate or shut up! Don't provide the other side with ammo! Message discipline! Message discipline! Stray and you're no longer our friend!"

    Folks, you hated this stuff when it was tried on you. Funny what a little taste of power will do to you, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Excellent post, Professor. As usual, you are right on the money.

    In my book, Krauthammer gets policy right about 90% of the time, if not more, but he's horribly bad at the politics. He initially pissed all over Palin; he said Joe Miller wouldn't win in Alaska; he initially was not behind Scott Brown; and now he's trashing O'Donnell. I wish he'd focus exclusively on policy and stay silent about the politics.

    Look, nobody is going to mistake Christine O'Donnell for Thomas Jefferson. But she doesn't have to be Thomas Jefferson when she will only be 1 of 100 votes.

    It's pretty simple. Coons will rubber stamp everything Obama wants. O'Donnell will stand against it. The choice couln't be more stark.

    If you want bigger government; more debt; unsustainable deficits; structurally high unemployment; more government intervention in the economy stifling dynamism and innovation; less liberty; higher electricity rates after cap and tax is passed; etc. Then vote Coons. If you want to stop all that nonsense, then vote O'Donnell.

    It's that simple. Everything else is a distraction.

    It's terribly destructive for the conservative snobs and elites to tear down our candidate just so they can satisfy their own inflated egos.

    ReplyDelete
  63. maggot, Sept 20, 12:31 pm:

    I was with you all the way --and still am --but, would you review your comment with the last nine words deleted? I think leaving out the imputation of motive would really power up your theme. IMHO, of course --

    ReplyDelete
  64. Nice article ... the power of truth

    ReplyDelete